At 01:51 PM 11/10/97, Moorad Alexanian wrote:
> However,
>I have my doubts on people who claim that they can find out what happened
>from the beginning by studying what surrounds them now. The notion of
>proving something, in the sense of mathematical rigor, is not that simple.
>
Proving things with mathematical rigor only applies to math and physics.
Biology, geology are far too complex be proven with that type of rigor. The
type of proof changes in historical sciences. it is the type of proof used
in a courtroom. We don't let every defendent go because we can't prove with
mathematical rigor that they were guilty. Similarly we can't avoid
conclusions about history because we can't prove it mathematically. How do
I prove you had breakfast this morning?
>>Once again, I challenge you to show me how the supernova SN1987a can be
>>re-interpreted based upon a different deductive model and not have it
>>violate observational data. I don't think you can do this.
>
>I have accepted what you said about the supernova. But again I will not bet
>my life on your findings.
>
No body is asking you to bet you life on it. It has nothing to do with
salvation.
>If I take the reductionist approach that physics underlies all the sciences,
>then the subject matter of science and theology are totally distinct.
>Genuine science deals with matter/energy, mind and body, and genuine
>theology deals with the spiritual. Of course, in the resurrection of Christ,
>a unique historical event thus outside the subject matter of science, some
>of these issues may be interwoven.
I would suggest that the creation and the flood and the exodus all dealt
with the material world. These are not entirely outside the realm of science.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm